tv Washington This Week CSPAN July 2, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
city, missouri. walter mondale at the 1984 democratic convention in san francisco. michael dukakis in atlanta for the 1988 democratic convention. and the 2004 democratic convention in boston with john kerry. past republican and democratic national conventions tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this 4th of july weekend book tv has three days of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2. tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwards" we'll have the discussion of the book "rise of the rocket girls, the women who propeled us from the moon to mars" in which she chronicles an elite group of women and their contributions to rocket design, space exploration, and the first american satellite. she is interviewed by lisa rand. >> in the beginning they did a lot of trajectoryies so they calculated the potential of
different rocket propellants and did trajectories for many early missiles. they worked on the corporal and the sergeant and then things changed when the space race happened and when nasa was formed. then these women's roles began changing. they ended up becoming the lab's first computer programmers. they had this incredibly long career at nasa. 40, 50 years. one of them still works at nasa today. >> and on sunday "in depth" is live with an author and documentary film maker sebastian younger who will take your calls, texts, and e-mail questions from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern discussing his latest book "tribe, on home coming and belonging." mr. younger is also the author f "war, a death in belmont," "fire" and "a perfect storm." and part two of a special q & a interview with former public interest lawyer and politician mark green, author of "bright,
infinite future." jean rational memoir on the progressive rise. monday at 2:30 p.m. eastern book tv tours the vivian g. harsh collection the largest african-american history and literature collection in the midwest. housed at the chicago public library's woodson branch. for the complete weekend chedule go to book tv.org. >> now edward glaeser cites labor market trends and what he calls poisonous government policy. mr. glaeser's recent speech at the manhattan institute in new york city was called the end of work. t's an hour. >> as you know polymath uses economics as a tool to understand the world and figure out ways to improve the human condition. one of the great public
intellectuals of our time, quite prolific, always provocative, and very perceptive. nobel laureate gary becker once remarked before ed burst on to the scene in the early 1990's urban economics was dried up. no one had come up with new ways to look at cities. ed continues to redefine economics particularly urban economics from his perch at harvard where he has taught since 1992. he has published dozens of papers on why cities rise and fall and his 2012 book "triumph of the city" became a "new york times" best seller. he serves as director of the center for state and local government and director of the nstitute for greater boston. the manhattan center is proud to call him one of our adgeenths. back in 2006 it was titled why are skilled cities getting more skilled? today he is revisiting the human capital theme with a
discussion of whether 12 years later woo he have reached, "the end of work." as someone who just sent in his final college tuition bill, let me say that i hope the answer o that question is a solid no. please join me in welcoming ed glaeser. [applause] >> thank you so much. i am deeply honored to be giving this lecture and that you've given me your time. this is a somewhat unusual lecture because it is not about the things at the court my research. instead, it is about the social problem that i think is merica's largest you may think
--. this is something that has disturbed me and i think it should distrib you as well. my objective in the next 20 minutes is to not convince you that i know the right answer to deal with this, but to convince you that this is a great social prb facing america today. what you are looking at is employment rate, not unemployment rate. not labor force participation rate. the two put together from the late 1950's through today. en i was born in 1967, 5% of males were jobless. today more than 15% of prime age males are jobless. an enormous change. what happens is that during every crisis the employment rate drops and then it comes back maybe half as much. i think that's what we're seeing again in this crisis. when you parce together what's been happening lately and i am putting this up so you don't feel too good abouthe slight decline at the end though i'm not sure this crowd is likely to feel too good about that,
when you look at the data cutting apart you see that in fact 25 to 34-year-old employment has come back. the young people who are not immediately fired when they were in 2007 the people who were 17 in 2007, they are re-entering the labor force and they are working. when you turn to the 35 to 44-year-olds or i didn't show you because it looks exactly the same the 45 to 54-year-olds, they're out. those drops are down and they appear to be permanent. that is exactly what you're seeing here. now, howard hopefully pointed out a report that's come out this month in the council of economic advisers on this issue on labor force participation, membership employment of prime age males, and needless to say i don't agree with all of the recommendations in the c.e.a. report. i am glad that they're casting a light on this. what this shows you is that the triangles show you where we were in 1990. and if you look at 1990 so the u.s. was 10% for nonemployment
which puts us less than germany, puts us less than australia, less than norway, today we're at 17% and we're in the territory of belgium and the slovak republic. we are not quite greece yet but we're in a very different place. we are profoundly moving in the wrong direction. one thing i do want you to take away from this is it is not inexorable that you go in the wrong direction. look in particular at germany. germany was significantly higher in 1990 than today. this reflects real and hard changes germany made to the labor market practices and laws over the past 15 years. and i think that is a minimum of what we'll be required to do here in this country. just a series of facts that relate to this. so there is a tripling of the share of males. in may, 1996 there were 73.8 million americans not employed. in may, 2016 adult americans,
went up to 112 million. huge increase. the employment population ratio differs enormously by education. the 72.5% of college graduates are employed. 41.3% of high school dropouts are employed. right? massive gaps with education within these groups. of course the background of this is a combination. i will come back to this again and again, a combination of trends in the labor market the government is not responsible for. and government policy which interacts with them in an absolutely poisonous manner. manufacturing employment has fallen from 18.3 million to 12.3 million. and there's been of course a massive rise in the number of disability recipients. this is a really boring graph but it makes the point. right? so this is disability, 4 million people on the rolls in 1995. we're up to 9 million today. massive change in disability. this is not because americans have gotten sicker. this is not what's going on here. this is a choice about a public policy program that very
strongly discourages people from working. and if there is a theme here, it is not that there is anything wrong with the well meaning impulse to help people who have been hurt. i understand that impulse. i believe in that. there is something wrong when government policies put incredibly strong disincentives to people working. you know, we all get upset when we think about high skilled people who face marginal tax rates of 50%. it's bad. i agree. but those high skilled people have relatively nice jobs. they go to work and they get respected thefment have a tradition of work. how about when we have effective tax rates of 70%, 80%, 90% on people on the other end of the scale of distribution who end up losing 30 cents on the dollar because of food stamps. they lose another 30 cents on the dollar because of housing vouchers. they lose a bit more because of earned income tax credit and other benefits they lose. we have affected tax rates for the poor that can be close to a hundred percent. we don't need to look further than that to understand why work looks unappealing to so many americans. accompanying this and i think
this is really an important point in some sense if there weren't government policies that discouraged work every unemployed person is a failure of entrepreneurial imagination. right? the recipe for this the thing that needs to come out against under employment is we need new start-ups. we need new ideas. we need new firms with new things to do. yet we are at a point of a crisis of entrepreneurship in this country. these are the number of jobs created by young establishments in the mid 1990's over 4.5 million a year now under 3 million. very large difference in this. very large decline in the amount of employment being created by new firms. okay. now this is the back drop. let's look at the public policy response. the focus is on income and wages not on under moiment. let me just give you a couple quotes from our political leaders. from the 2016 state of the union, third paragraph, equal pay for equal work.
paid leave. applause. raising the minimum wage. applause. all of these things matter to hard working families. i agree. but of course they're probably not going to be working after all those things are done. right? bernie sanders leading the fight in the senate for a $15 an hour minimum wage and the union for fast food workers. right? all the focus is on the wages. no focus at all on the under employment problems. sort of a deaf ear to the massive wave troubling america. unemployment insurance extension right? doubling the amount of time you could get unemployment insurance. for each month you're on unemployment insurance you face a major disincentive against preventing you from working pushing you against working. the unemployment insurance extension would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy she claims. i think i probably agree. she has the sign wrong. i think it's for more likely to eliminate 600,000 jobs than create 600,000 jobs. now, i take the view that
nonemployment, unemployment is a far worse social problem than stagnant wages. i think there is a fair amount of data to support this view. in fact making sure someone's wages are going up by 4% rather than 2% is very, very small potatoes relative to making sure that more americans have jobs. have a meaningful connection. feel like their lives have a purpose and they're contributing to society. let me summarize a set of facts on this. there is strong data on unhappiness. i'll show you a bar. the unemployed are deeply unhappy. suicide rates are dramatically higher for the unemployed. there appears to be a strong correlation. divorce rates go up very substantially. doubling the rates for the unemployed. drug abuse. i'll show you a fact on that. much higher for the unemployed. and unemployment, nonemployment has a pervasive and painful tendency to become permanent. all right? that's the last point i'll make. short spells can turn into long spells. okay. so this comes from my own work on unhappy cities looking at
the reduction in happiness relative to being employed and earning over $75,000. say you earn $60,000 and this is on a one to four scale, so one is miserable. four is gleeful. all right? you lose maybe 0.16 of a point. if you go down to 35 to 50 k you lose maybe 2.5 on this one to 4 scale. if you lose your job and are unemployed for the year it is a reduction of one on this scale. it is a distance -- five times as large as any of these things. how in the world you can look at this data and think the important point is to move people up from 33 k to 37 k relative to making sure people don't end up in this bottom category, an awful cat fwri where they're miserable. now, economists have had a tendency to often under state the costs of unemployment. after all, maybe unemployment is voluntary. maybe people are having a great time being unemployed. i think if there is anything i've taken from behavioral
economics it is this is the wrong way to think about unemployment. in fact this is not some happy state of leisure. this is a state that traps you and makes you miserable when people are unable to muster some way to change things. now, one of the graffs is very helpful -- one of the graphs that is very helpful is showing the nonparticipating prime age men. i had a graph previously which included all nonparticipating people men and women and the truth is women when they're not in the labor force do useful things. they actually take care of their families. they do a whole bunch of nice stuff. what do boys do? well, mostly it's tv. okay? there's a lot of television. right? so the number per day socializing is 472 minutes. i don't think i've done that in the last year in terms of number of minutes at socializing and 335 minutes a day watching television. right? so maybe if you started with
the theory that watching tv made you happy you'd be surprised by the low happiness data but i think in fact this is not a recipe for feelings of life satisfaction, spending five and a half hours a day watching television. that is exactly what they're doing. they do sleep a little bit more. but they said no -- spend no more time caring for household members. now, there's new work and this is from a paper last year that came out in psychiatry. showing what shouldn't surprise you that unemployment is associated with massively more suicide than slowdowns in economic growth. in fact, suicide is very tightly tied to the disruptions in the labor force to being alone to being socially disconnected. this is a very wilsonian point. we are social creatures. it's why cities are so successful. the bonds to people around us keep us healthy, whole, make us smarter, make us stronger. the terrible thing about nonemployment is you break those bonds. you're away in your home watching television. you lose all the support net works we have all around us in
various ways. this has catastrophic impact on life satisfaction. it also has catastrophic impacts on divorce rates. this was the most legible version. there are many studies. this is from finland i think. but this is a very easy-to-read -- divorces per thousand married. if you're employed, with the husband being unemployed, the divorce rate goes up by 80% relative to the spouse being employed. so a massive increase. if you look across husbands' income between one and five there's almost no difference. income isn't causing the huge difference. it is unemployment. the disruption to the social disconnection that is so powerful. drug use. again. very moderate effects on income. very large effects of being nonemployed. about 18% of the unemployed have used an illegal substance in the last month as opposed to 8% of the population as a whole. massive difference here. and this is for my own work on
opioids. what we've done here is just looked at the relationship between the rise in 2012 and the share of the population on disability in 1991. as you can see it is the variable that in our data set that has the strongest correlation with the rise in opioid deaths is what share of the population was there 25 years ago. several things, it is about joblessness and hopelessness but also things that happen with disability as well. this is one of the many papers showing the long running impacts of unemployment. what this shows is what happens if you get laid off at 22. that's the jump in unemployment. 10% of the people still five years later have not gotten a job but you have a permanent impact of about 5% on your wages going forward. so these early unemployment spells are not free by any stretch of the imagination. they are a permanent change to the labor outcome. i apologize for this. this is a 15-year-old graph
from a really great paper. it's just that graphics are awful. what this is showing is the clusters of unemployment rates across a series of european countries over the period 1996 to 2000. the point of this paper is that it was a combination in yurpe of their labor market protections, labor market policies, and the adverse economic shock. you started having social democracy in the 1960's and early 1970's. very little effect. when the economy was coming along the safeguards didn't come into play. they didn't start working their side effects. by the 1980's when you had the destruction of the oil shops all of a sudden you have people laid off and the cocoon of the system takes over. all of a sudden they are in a system which they no longer have incentives to go to work but to stay home. they're connected to people out of work rather than being in work. and long running unemployment
follows. in some sense there is a difference between europe, northern europe and southern europe in its reaction to this. this is the germany point. this is the sweden point. the variety of democracies, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, saw this and responded. they sensibly understood they could not go on with this system so they changed things. they loosened up the labor market. they moved in with more sensible policies. whereas southern europe, italy, greece, spain, did nothing. and those problems are still very much with us. they're unable to make the changes. you have to ask yourself tonight are we norway? are we germany? are we greece? we're very much at that threshold right now as a country whether or not we'll go one way or the other. now, i'm just going to go through a few of the policies that i think make up the war on work. again, they are motivated by very understandable reasons. they are motivated by a desire
to make lives of people who do work better but they're not motivated with any attempt to try and solve the under employment problem. extending u.i. is one example. these drastic extensions of unemployment insurance in the face of the recession work exactly the wrong direction because they eliminated the incentive to actually go back to work. food stamps and housing vouchers. each one of these programs separately imposes a 30% tax on earnings. disability payments. permanent discouragement to work. today we're in the midst of a $15 minimum wage craze. i'll go back to this in a little bit in terms of new evidence on the minimum wage. because american minimum wage has stayed so low for so long we were in a position in which we sort of came to forget that minimum wage actually can have major effects because we compared new jersey and pennsylvania with these very tiny differences and we didn't see huge differences in employment. even if you have a huge minimum
wage it won't matter. it's the wrong conclusion. i'll show you in a second a paper that shows just how costly higher minimum wages were in the recession to low skilled workers. let me show you a little data on this. this is a very classic paper by bruce meyer. there are debates around this. but the basic fact is along with the weeks until your u.i. payments run out what you are supposed to take away is a sort of 5% chance of getting a job during all the time you get u.i. and then it suddenly sparks up just as u.i. payments are running out. right? that is this fact. i think it is very telling. when the cash runs out you suddenly start looking for work. all right? which means if i suddenly double the number of weeks you're getting u.i. i'll keep the number of weeks you're not looking for work there. this is a paper by greenberg & lyle. what they're looking at is the extension of disability compensation for veterans. this was particularly for type
2 diabetes and motivated by agent orange during the vietnam war. and what this meant was that those people who had boots on the ground in vietnam had access to this. and the people who served during that exact same time period did not. they are able to compare the two groups which look relatively similar both before and afterwards. what you see is after 2001 with the change happening there is a huge gap that widens out between the boots on the ground people versus nongroups on the -- boots on the ground people. large amounts of take up for this group. 20% of them leave the labor force. okay? even though in fact disability compensation doesn't have the same strong negative effect as normal disability they're still getting out of the labor force. guaranteed basic income. now, this is actually an idea somebody just reminded me the differences between guaranteed basic and guaranteed minimum. this is in some sense the alternative to how we want to think about u.i. and disability insurance. when people talk about guaranteed minimum income they mean a means tested thing where
you get some fixed amount as you earn more and it gets tacked away. you don't get any. guaranteed basic -- the economics are much better. you actually just give people cash and that's it. no strings attached. if you actually had an infinite amount of cash it would be a reasonable thing. no negative incentives. the absence of an infinite amount of cash does pose some slight problem. but the idea of guaranteed basic income is actually relevant for disability insurance and unemployment insurance. the pernicious effects are because they discourage work. because they're tied to not working. the government, i cannot tell you what an awful thing i think this is that our government creates such strong incentives to stop people from going to work. something says when you get unemployed you just get a check based on your expected duration. maybe we require you to look for work while getting the check but we don't stop payments when you go back to work. something that is a smaller check. same thing with disability. we give them a check.
there is a proven medical condition. we don't reduce it. in some sense this puts the normal fear about disability on its head. often the fears about disability are oh, gosh terrible that he's working while getting disability. right? this is not a clear case of fraud. we should worry less about fraud and worry more about the fact that we're stopping people from using their talents to make the world better. that is in fact the more important problem. the natural way to get rid of both is just give people a check or a series of checks over time and don't make it dependent on them not working. the government needs to stop bribing people to be idle. this is the fundamental point here. minimum wage. we have a new surge ens of work on the minimum wage. a former student from harvard has a terrific new paper that looks at the impact of minimum wage during the great recession. 20 years ago, this spate of paper around new jersey and nnsylvania that purported to
find no effect. after 2007 there was a series of bump ups in the federal minimum wage that hit poorer parts of america. not new jersey, not pennsylvania. places that are low wage states. it mattered and particularly for low skilled people. this is the, to show you the unemployed of young high school drop outs in states bound by the federal minimum wage increases and state is not bound. the states that were bound, that means they had lower minimum wages to begin with started out with a lot more employment for the low skilled workers. they started with more young high school drop outs working because they didn't have a minimum wage. that is one view. then it starts falling as the minimum wage comes in. it falls and falls again. it falls again. by the end of it, they're all lower. and they converged on each other. you cease to have a difference. clemmons estimated a 5.6% decrease in employment due to minimum wage which represents about 43% of the overall decline in the employment rate for this group.
the minimum wage was not a free lunch and certainly moving wages to $15 an hour is certainly going to be a recipe for disaster for the less skilled workers of our service industries. there is a nice paper, 20 years ago now, that came out during this earlier space that made the point that the new jersey, pennsylvania group was just too small and urged us to look at puerto rico which had much higher minimum wages relative to earnings. here the case indexes showing the ratio of minimum wage to average wage, then you have the unemployment rate. but it is actually close to one over there. you get quite high over there. on the other side. the employment rate when it goes up the employment rate goes down. you get a very substantial elasticy of puerto rican employment when they impose a much more stringent minimum wage than we did in the continental 50, continental 48 where the unemployment rate fell much more dramatically. now, while i think about this move for the minimum wage the
thing that upsets me most is the morality of it. not the economics are bad but it's this per verse notion that we're going to have redistribution in this country and you know where we'll get it paid for? not taxpayers. right? not, you know, people who have means. we're going to get the customers of walmart to pay for the minimum wage. we're going to get the people who are buying hamburgers at mcdonald's in high poverty areas. they are the people we'll ask to pay minimum wage. when you impose higher wages in the service industries, it is going to be passed along to customers. that means we are trying to do redistribution on the backs of the poor. that is what this is all about. it's an absolutely daunting thing. on top of the fact that to the extent to which, you know, the only groups in the world that i think of are actually fighting hard to solve the unemployment problem are the people employed, less skilled workers. they should be held up as heroes not treated as villains to be penalized. now, is there a better path?
sure. can i promise that we solve this whole thing? no. but there are obvious ways to move in the right direction rather than in the wrong direction. one of the bright lights that we had in this country the last 25 years in terms of getting people to work was the earned income tax credit. the idea is right and has a positive effect on people working but is deeply complicated. it's a recipe -- make it simpler. all right? make it -- push the wage up but do it through the tax code. do it through spending rather than imposing it on workers. eliminate the payroll tax for lower earning workers. make work pay as much as you can. it will be costly. it's not free. but it makes a lot more sense than trying to impose it by ising the minimum wage for service industries. eliminate all joblessness requirements in federal programs. get rid of any part of disability insurance or u.i.
that means payment contingent upon not working. this is a thing that could be done. we'd have to reduce the amounts in some cases. but there is no reason why you need to make these things contingent upon not working. you could make things means testedn terms of how much people earn but i never want to see another government program that actually pays people not to work. that discourages people from going to work. reduce payroll taxes for low income workers. deregulate entrepreneurship. i'll talk a little bit about innovation. and experimental skill programs. i'll talk about the project i'm trying to evaluate in boston. okay. so does this stuff work? we have a great example from norway which experimented with a disability program. up to a threshold they said you could keep a buck for every two you make. so instead of once you go over the income it's all gone ks you're losing your d.i., right, in this case you get to keep 50 cents on the dollar. this shows you this red line, the effective tax rate.
50 cents on the dollar here and it keeps going. this is the sort of maximum income you're allowedincome you. andgap between this mine this line shows you the extra people working here, the people that did not get the program, these are the people that did. the reason it is different is because it is hard if you got stability pants before, 2001, 2004, you could get this program before. there was a cut off right afterwards. dramatic differences with employment between these two groups. i think the number is like a percent increase in employment for the people that had -- 8% increase in implement for people that had this to work. there was no reason we cannot do this. no reason for norway to have it and thus not. -- must not. the possible project may work. again, we have got to reform the government project that also provide training that makes a difference. i mentioned a possible project,
to train people in schools for the entrepreneurs. it does so in a way that starts off by having them sell things on ebay, the simplest form you can imagine, and then walk them up to make her space and so on. -- makers space. work't know that this will , which is why we run a trial on it. but what we need in this country is not to think that we know the answer, but we need the flourishing of all the kind of innovative ideas the people in this room have. we need the private sector to try to bring skills, teach people how to become entrepreneurs, five products in places where you did not think there was one. it may work, you scale it up, we try something else. workis how things should in this world. innovation centers, this is, the -- last year, i was talking
about, two years ago, i was talking about trying to create enterprise zones within high poverty areas. let me a test and i mean by this. there are two ways to think about the zone. one is a place where we are going to drive people to relocate, which is what they are . i think it is not the right way to go. the outcomes are deeply sensitive. the others is to reform. it is a place where you can try things where you could not get in the city of a whole. so one place, a town in massachusetts called devens, there was a fort devens, they gained the devens enterprise mission. you go to one person, one person in charge of making sure business it through. i will call out michael henderson, who does a great job for measuring how awful our local regulations are in terms of making things hard for businesses. if i can get one-stop permitting for businesses as a whole, i
will take it. do it for a small part, the most attractive areas, see if it works, hopefully we can scale it out. unsurprisingly, the city of boston has grown much more enthusiastic of doing things that look fun rather than actually deregulating. i will take what i can get. so this involves creating some degree of training and social connection in these areas, but we need to continue pushing on this. entrepreneurs are our answer. and things need to be held together. every time we put a barrier on entrepreneurship, we are saying no to a poor kid who could have a better future. you may not sit on the couch for 350 minutes week but you might actually be doing something productive, like the filling a dream. i want to start with something i checked on. one of my favorite stories of local entrepreneurship and regulation. it is a story about detroit, and five years ago, there is the case of this poor woman who runs
a food truck, called pink flamingo. she wants to start her food truck in detroit. and food trucks are a pet cause of mine, i.e. at food trucks -- i eat at food trucks for five times a day. i did for 25 years. they are fantastic for this particular area. they are easy for people to get started, actually do something new and creative, but they are so often held back by rules like this poor woman was. the idea that detroit would say no to any entrepreneur seems like madness. local restaurateurs, being local restaurateurs, this is the last thing they wanted. , i thinkon npr show five years ago, with this woman and the men of the city of detroit. was, the mayor, being pummeled. smiley after an hour, he was exhausted and said, go lady, we will never catch you.
[laughter] ed glaeser: so i guess i wanted to end on that story, because it does give me hope. america is a country full of entrepreneurial people. people of vision, and people who for centuries have been coming up with jobs, coming up with new ideas to make the rich and employ thousands of people. we can do that again. but we need to have a change of policies that improve skills, vocational training, entrepreneurial training. we need to figure out how to improve regulations, make sure how it is easy to start a food truck, not hard, and stop paying people not to work. those three changes are the fight ahead. and i hope you will join me in this fight, because i think it is the most important one for our country. thank you. [applause]
ed glaeser: yes, sir? dean is bringing it out. >> thank you. i have a question about the other side -- ed glaeser: which? >> your topic, your work? what about the work ethic? what is the data with respect to retirement? people retire after a long time because he worked too hard, and then they retire and looking forward to leisure. do they stop working and get bored by not working and go into leisure? and what about the issue of work ethic by those who are employed? how do we tell people who are employed, specifically with unions, are actually working as opposed to using social media all day? [laughter]
ed glaeser: so there are two questions involving that, one is about retirement. retirement is a mixed bag. there are a lot of people that have strict vegan -- significant issues with retirement. some people are able to find tremendous value. it is making sure your life has purpose. if your retirement is something that is, i think about my 90-year-old grandmother was still doing literacy training in her town, she never lagged, she never ran out of software. in bostonriver i have is a guy who retired two years ago, couldn't stand it, and now is driving a car because they alone oriserable being their wife was so miserable to have them home. [laughter] ed glaeser: the second question was about work ethic. i think the government's job is not to work against that. i'm worried about trusting the federal government certainly
with being charged of providing any kind of ethical training for anyone. as a parent that is about as i do think important a job i have. i do think as members of social groups, as members of our community, as neighbors people who go to churches, synagogues, that is really training is communal as well. i think it is hard to think that training is a public role, though i do like a mayor that will talk about the virtue of hard work rather than the outcome. >> [indiscernible] ed glaeser: unionization, on, you know, i think it depends on what type of unionized asian and where. -- unionized asian and where. ago,, 2.5 years ago, i did a walls -- town hall with mayor walsh when he was just
rocksd, and we were in college -- we were in roxbury college. we were there at 6:30 in the morning. the mayor comes out of this construction world. by 6:00 a.m., the guys were there. they were there, working like law. other partners are the teaching staff of the community college. they were less present. [laughter] ed glaeser: i think about unions, we need to think and recognize there is a lot to be made, some of them act and were quite well. they are a highly competitive industry. when they are not allowed to be on the bargaining table. [indiscernible] maybe not even. thing one side of the unions [indiscernible] but certainly, [indiscernible] but they can also do good.
yes, sir? >> thank you very much. if i interpreted the chart correctly, i am curious why it seemed that both the unemployed and the employed are sleeping more than 12 hours a day. but that is not actually, that is not actually my question. it is well-established that throughout history technology , and innovation have created more jobs than they destroyed. ed glaeser: it is others including sleep. [speaking simultaneously] hence my premise, if i interpreted the chart correctly. innovation,logy and these days, more and more economists are saying that this time it is different including , economists on the right. what is your view on what technology innovation are doing now and what will they do in the next generation independent of government regulatory things?
what is happening? is there a new trend or not? ed glaeser: we think about bill gates and henry ford. andy ford innovated in ways employed hundreds of less skilled americans. innovators of the computer age have done much less of that. their innovations have been to employ highly skilled workers. it is hard to think of really great examples, as when i would come to in a second, hard to think of that many great examples where tech interpreters move towards employing less skilled workers. it is not whether imagination lays. perhaps the spatial isolation of silicon valley. the fact that it is impossible to build anything under $5 million there. they don't see many people around them, so it does not seem natural for them to employ them. whatever it is the bulk of the , technology has moved in the wrong direction from the point of view of skilled americans. we have a glaring counterexample. uber is the opposite.
company example of a that employs, provides employment, for lots and lots of less skilled people. if you did not face major distortion, it is hard not to think that in the longer run, maura jupiters are going to see that problem. to findhat would like some work, and yet, they are not able to currently, and that is an opportunity. my point is, every underemployed person is a failure of imagination, and we have got a lot of imagination in this country. it is a matter of fact the last 40 years, the months of skewed towards highly skilled workers, and the bulk of the high-end entrepreneurship in this country has been targeted towards, you know higher skilled employees. ,but there is nothing written in stone about that. in no sense is technology some force that fits this. when there are opportunities, a
takes event of that. we will see more about it, as long as we don't regulate them away. as on israel make it impossible to work. i am leave though, ceo of american awards, and i am totally amazed by your data. i think it is fantastic, because we work with disadvantaged people getting them jobs all the time, and see all those disincentives. one of the things which you have not addressed as we see every day is how much work socializes people. if you think of inner-city young people or people coming out of prison, minorities who have never worked when you get them a , job, they suddenly talk differently, they walk differently, they dress differently. they engage in the brother world -- broader world, and that is so valuable.
they don't see it, they have never talked to these people. so the last vestige of socialization is actually work in our society, because communities have broken down and church breaks down, schools have broken down. employment still provides that. so i just wanted to ask you if you have looked at that, because to us, that is one of the most valuable things. ed glaeser: i agree with that point, strongly. one of the olive things i know [indiscernible] there is so much capital regulation occurs on the job. confidence, but most assuredly the most support and skills for those workers are social, how to get along. one thing i want to push you on is [indiscernible] but i think it is true for my own nephew as well. i think it is not just an issue of people from broken homes. it is any 21-year-old in modern
society has been told they are brilliant for far too long -- [laughter] ed glaeser: i love to get away with stuff by loving parents in a variety of different forms. and the job is the first is relate learn the way to function in this world, -- first place where they learn the way to function in this world. it is not just environment, it is all. it is absolutely [indiscernible] yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] ed glaeser: where is the microphone? >> we have an event coming up in november, and to the extent that you can discern your policies and your preferred policies, would you care to comment on how the two presumed president of candidates might influence the future? [laughter] ed glaeser: i keep burying my head in the sand until this goes away.
it won't. i mean, i -- [laughter] election reminds us why it is so important to have institutions like the manhattan institute that stand and, youn and evidence know, we need to be talking about topics that matter and the right way to have policy responses to those problems. theyamazed by how much have disagreements, but once you have people that believe evidence makes policy, you get to some places very far away from either candidate very quickly. so you can say i am uncomfortable with, the important point right now is to keep on standing up for those reasons, for knowledge, for focusing on the problems that matter, and for fighting for in america -- and america is about
being great, but also being sensible and being focused on delivering skills uplifting everyone. i promised sandra. >> i was wondering [indiscernible] ed glaeser: got to wait for the mic sorry. >> [indiscernible] about how, how roxbury encourages entrepreneurship? number two, i read [indiscernible] from the president of new york city public commerce, and i was unaware that the public commerce supports entrepreneurship. three, the island of jersey, the tunnel islands does not give -- channel islands, does not give social where found -- social welfare unless you work. ed glaeser: i will pick the last
one first. it happens that i spent some time in jersey this year. in fact, my first new york ancestor came there from the island of burn the in 1820 -- island of burnsey in the 1820's. a variety of this sort of program is sensible. they are in, they are in a world in which they are so privileged in so many ways in jersey, the weather is so fantastic. they have this several, they make it easy to be a financial hub. it is hard to think of a great example, but they do so many sensible things. the other thing, jersey is dominated by a future large view large firms, and they are not great on a entrepreneurship at all. it is a conversation i had with , whoorter in guernsey said, i want to be an entrepreneur, but why would i want to work for price waterhouse cooper for the next few years over
their people graduating from stanford today, if you told them they would have to be a scale afterburner, they would tell that is better than being a partner at price waterhouse cooper. that is completely implausible. so let me say, i got caught on jersey. the first one was -- >> how does roxbury -- ed glaeser: ok, it starts with the social space and programming. there is a person there to try to make sure their program brings people in. the problem of the project is actually a well-designed program that works people through steps. so again, it starts them by selling things on ebay and then move them along, a more thought-out program. it is being worked out, and based on the model on the waterfront, which was fabulously successful, but [indiscernible] very much towards [indiscernible]
and your middle one was? >> [indiscernible] ed glaeser: oh yeah. , over the pastrk 15 years, has done a number of things to encourage entrepreneurship. many of them i support. some of them, they have this great map of all the permits you need to go through to get, to start a shop. it is fabulous the things you can learn, but the problem is there a 17 things you need to go through. they did not say you need 17 different permits, but they show you that you need them. that is a step in the right direction. we hope for more going forward. dean? >> i don't, somebody else should choose. ed glaeser: go to the back. >> thank you. the problem is i agree with everything you say, but what really upsets me is that we are
preaching to the choir. i want to focus you on the union thing. you said sometimes union play a good role. i have a problem with that. [laughter] unions are basically a restraint of trade. it basically is contrary to competition. i happen to live in a co-op, and you can't get into the union 32b, which is a nonskilled job door, pressen the the button for the elevator, and these guys, some of them are working two shifts. people wholot of can't even make the minimum wage would love those jobs. how do you justify any union if you believe in free competition in the free market?
ed glaeser: well, wait a minute. what i justify with any, any free association, or almost any free association of adults, the extent to which you are forming a social group of some form, i think that should be legal. constitution protects it. forogically enforced increasing employment, no. by and large, it is for raising wages and reducing unemployment. the thing that is the point. -- i don't think that is the point. i give you example that, of those construction workers. there are times when having the social connections is not the worst thing in the world. i'm not deeply unfriendly to what you are saying. >> [indiscernible] ed glaeser: and the training, there is also vocational training that goes on. i think it can be a significant problem. ok? >> i am with the city journal.
there was an article in the times, if i can mention that name, this week, bite neil irwin. neal irwin. he said countries in western europe have more regulation than we do and higher minimum wage actually have less unemployment. number one, is that correct, and number two, what do you make of it? ed glaeser: you can look at it. there we are, right? we are looking bad. it is certainly true. that swedennly true and german are not free of regulations, but they did rethink their regulations and make them more sensible. goingk the -- if i were to have a two factor model of this, it would be about regulations stymieing entrepreneurship. and that is bad that is bad in , europe.
it is bad more or less depending on how it is designed. it is that in europe, it is bad here. on the other side, skills. there's no question they should look at the german educational system and doesn't better job at delivering skills. the right answer is not the germany has a better labor force dissipation. it is because they have a vastly better job of finding vocational training, getting people in the workforce. i think that is the right lesson to take away from this, not that we should be imposing arbitrary regulations on things like work. >> thank you. if you think about what the the trends are in innovation, it seems like robotics as well as artificial intelligence are clear trends. maybe exacerbated by minimum wage on the robotics have. -- robotics side, but eventually a lot of the low labor jobs will , be taken over by machines. even the service jobs will be taken over by machines. what are the implications for that? have you thought about that?
ed glaeser: again, this is related to a bigger thing, i don't think any of this is inevitable. the long-term role of human production is unlikely to be. it is services. it is service employment. ,here are lots of reasons why why the trades in cities are not going away. the connection in cyberspace liver from perishing a meal, a kiss, or a smile. there are some point to say about having a really good service experience. if you have an interaction with someone in a store, and a car, with anyone else who is charming and pleasant, it is a delight. it is absolutely delightful thing. the question is whether or not the people out of the labor force can actually deliver it. this is why the social skills are so important. if you don't have people of the social skills to function well in the service industry, it is a big problem, and you are going to replace them all with a
machine. there's a world, a view of technological determinism is wrong. these new technologies create , butenges unquestionably they can be met. the need to be met with some, nation of skill and having sensible regulation, sensible benefits that do not discourage people are working. i can imagine a world where we have a very heavy service sector that is functioning for and find jobs are people that are less skilled and does employ people. i don't see any reason why that can't happen. final question. ok great. i could go all right -- all night. i don't want to end. >> i want to have a big comeback to the technology side. you gave us a specific example , unintentionally perhaps, to the tech guys earlier. ebay is the direct derivative and consequence of what microsoft has done in the like firms, situating this enterprise
software that permit things you are using in roxbury. that is what automation brings. ed glaeser: you are right, you are right. it has a been to do with a similar structure to uber. you are absolutely right on that. >> there's a new book coming out called the uber of everything. ed glaeser: the thing with ebay, the result made a mistake, i forgot about the employees. they are certainly entrepreneurs , but they are also employees. >> they are not employers. they enable employment. are you familiar with the boston consulting group? oft year on the correlation five countries, on the correlation of entrepreneurship and job access to global technology, specifically cell phones and smartphones, it was pictured an early interesting in terms of the answer to this question. do you get more job formation, that's her job growth, faster creation of small jobs when you look at the penetration of smartphones?
it is very encouraging, frankly. ed glaeser: i have not seen it. it sounds certainly plausible, and i think again it makes the point that technology is not dooming anything. it is a question of how it is used. i think that is the point. so again, and i just want to end on this point. i am not, this is not a rosy speech, this is not a happy speech that i am giving. it is actually a profoundly deep speech. i'm disturbed about our country and the policy debate around this problem. we are not in fact having the right debates about how to reform these programs to get people to work. we are not having the conversation about entrepreneurship. but, despite that, despite the fundamentally optimistic about the country, about the city, and i remain optimistic because there is so much entrepreneurial talent. there is so much energy, and so much in this room of people who are smart and thoughtful and care about making america in new york a better place.
i just thank you for all you do for this country and thank you for your time here. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [applause] announcer: the hard-fought 2016 primary season is over, with historic inventions to follow this summer. clinton: colorado. announcer: watch as they consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a major political party, and the first non-politician in several decades. watch live on c-span. watch or listen on the radio app , and get c-span on demand at c-span.org. you have a front row seat to every moment. this all begins monday, july 18.
announcer: with the republican and democratic national convention happening later this month, c-span is taking a look back at past conventions and those would go on to receive nomination for president. we feature the nominees that ran for president wants during their political careers, beginning with harry truman in 1948. after that, we show you john f. kennedy accepting the nomination in 1960, followed by barry goldwater in 1964, and gerald ford in a can 76. -- in 1976. >> after the death of president roosevelt in 1945, vice president harry truman was sworn in as the 33rd president. he would go on to fulfill that term before launching his own successful bid for the white house. the 1948 campaign was the only